Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 330 (MP)

Satya Narayan Choksey v. State of M. P.

2011-03-10

R.S.JHA, S.R.ALAM

body2011
JUDGMENT : By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have questioned the validity of clause 29.4 of the Excise policy for the year 2010-11. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The aforesaid policy was subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.1632/2010 and a full bench of this court has upheld its validity wherefrom a S.L.P. was also preferred which was also dismissed. Besides that it is apparent that clause 29.4 provides that in the event of the first default in payment of licence fee the liquor quota for that fortnight would not be allowed to be lifted and if there is a second consecutive default then the licence may be cancelled. It is alleged by the petitioner in para 5.12 of the petition that some licencees were permitted to deposit the licence fee after expiry of the stipulated period and they were permitted to lift the liquor against such deposit of licence fee. 3. The learned counsel when confronted with the observation that the validity of the excise policy of the year 2010-11 has also been upheld by the full Bench of this court, he fairly submitted that he has instructions not to press the relief challenging the validity of the rule. He further submitted that this petition may be confined only to the decision of the Excise Commissioner dated 7.2.2011 rejecting his applications contained in annexure P/4. 4. It is submitted by the learned Deputy Advocate General that against the order passed in pursuance to the aforesaid clause the licencee has remedy by way of appeal and revision under the rules framed under section 62 of the Act. 5. Be that as it may, as the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal before the Chief Revenue Officer against the order of the Commissioner, therefore, the petition filed by him is disposed of with a direction that in the event the petitioner files an appeal against the order dated 7.2.2011 the same may be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case and in the event the appellant prefers the appeal it is for the appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of.